by David Steven | May 21, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America, UK
I am at the New America Foundation this morning, where David Miliband is due to ‘discuss the challenge of promoting Western style liberalism, democracy, civil society development in a world that in some corners views the word “democracy” suspiciously.’ The event will be streamed live here.
This is Miliband’s opportunity to connect with a younger audience in Washington. The meeting has been set up by the British Council, as part of its TN2020 network. I moderated the network’s first event in Berlin just before Easter, while Alex and I wrote an essay on climate for the TN2020 book. The intro:
The climate problem is now urgent enough to be a major determinant of the transatlantic relationship. In the wake of Bali, we are promised summits and shindigs galore as the world struggles to agree a global deal to replace Kyoto. This will keep climate at the top of the political and news agenda.
But if a global deal is signed in 2009, the fun will only just have started. Greenhouse gas emissions will need to be slashed by at least half, and probably much more, by 2050. Rich countries will be expected to make deep cuts almost immediately. A colossal and unprecedented economic realignment will therefore be needed. It’s a huge task. So how will Europe and the US fare on this shifting terrain?
The warm-up act is Andrew Sullivan, über-blogger and hawk turned hardcore Obamafan, and absolutely charming in person. He’s talking about the way that – in the new media age – the British and American media audience are merging, with southern England a centre left or centre right ‘blue state’. “I often feel my blog is better understood in London than it is in certain parts of the United States,” he says.
But then Miliband arrives and Sullivan is shuffled off the stage. Introduced by the Washington Note’s Steve Clemons (and our host) as ‘primarily a blogger’, Miliband sits on the table and talks without notes.
He starts with the much-stated, but seldom practised, point that the new diplomacy needs to meld state-to-state relations, economic integration, and the ‘new public diplomacy’ – the mobilisation of non-state audiences.
The great causes in international relations are far from dead, he says, focusing on four challenges. Can we build strong communities across race and religion? Can we take on the conflicts that blight people’s lives? Can we stabilise the global climate? And can we build stronger and more effective international institutions?
Miliband argues that the problems of globalization will be solved by extending globalization. The world needs to tackle its problems through more internationalism not less.
I suggest that the major challenge for globalisation is the combination of rising expectations with limits to strategic resources (food, energy, emissions etc – it’s now a familiar list). What impact will the politics of scarcity have on the international system?
Miliband’s response (with apologies for the paraphrase – hard to type while nodding attentively):
We are living through an unprecedented triple crunch of credit, food and fuel. The common denominator is between food and fuel is carbon dependence. Climate change closes the circle. The key question is whether we can get on a lower carbon trajectory or not. If we don’t, the conflicts that people fear are a real danger.
So, yes, we share an analysis – but I suspect that, collectively, the world is far from having the answers…
by David Steven | May 21, 2008 | Influence and networks
Yesterday’s Brooking’s event on the US and Europe (see this post) included three panels – one on the Presidential election; one on the French EU presidency; and one on Russia.
The Presidential panel combined general rejoicing at the imminent (243 days and counting) departure of George Bush (“somewhat less popular in Europe than Satan”) with caution that expectations may be too high at what will follow.
Gary Schmitt, from the American Enterprise Institute, who advises McCain, thought that Republicans had become much more realistic about the need for transatlantic ties. McCain’s speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy got a plug (and not just from Gary, but from other speakers too):
The debate in the transatlantic relationship – over who is to lead and who to follow, whether to act in concert or unilaterally, or if the bonds that unite us are stronger than interests that divide us – that debate is over. Our interests, though not always perfectly congruent, are rarely diverging.
The Obama narrative, meanwhile, is ‘deeply attractive’ to Europeans, according to Laurence Freedman, currently promoting his new book, on American and the Middle East – A Choice of Enemies. The Bush administration was forever tarnished in European eyes by Guantanamo Bay, Iraq Abu Ghraib, he said. At a time when Europe is populated by a cast of ‘weak leaders’, a new President will have the opportunity to make a clean break from the past (close Guantanamo) and generate real leadership for the US. (more…)
by Alex Evans | May 21, 2008 | Conflict and security, North America
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs]
So says Kevin James, a right wing radio host, of Barack Obama. Problem is, as the news anchor interviewing him then makes painfully clear, Kevin James has also never heard of Neville Chamberlain. Excruciating.
by David Steven | May 20, 2008 | Conflict and security, Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa, North America
I’ve been at the Brookings Institution in Washington today for its conference on the transatlantic relationship.
In the chair, Daniel Benjamin, who runs Brookings’ Center on the United States and Europe, and who wrote The Age of Sacred Terror and The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting it Right with the Council on Foreign Relations’ Steven Simon.
In The Next Attack, Benjamin and Simon argued that:
It is unlikely that even in his feverish reveries, Usama bin Laden could have imagined that America would stumble so badly and wound itself so grievously. By occupying Iraq, the United States has played into the hands of its opponents, affirming the story they have been telling to the Muslim world and adding to their aura as true warriors in defence of Islam…
There is, as has so often been said, a war of ideas going on, a battle for hearts and minds. Unfortunately, America has wound up on the wrong side.
Of course, this was pretty predictable. Every effective terror movement in history has been fuelled by the adverse reaction of its host society. The Bush administration has simply proved particularly obtuse and self-destructive- a fact for which Al Qaeda is appropriately grateful. In 2004, bin Laden mischievously quoted an unnamed British diplomat speaking at Chatham House (!) to support his assertion that ‘it seems as if we and the White House are on the same team shooting at the United States’ own goal’.
Benjamin and Simon’s policy prescription for the US can be summed simply as: stop scoring own goals. They call for a ‘deep and dramatic’ engagement with the Islamic world and point to Turkey’s relationship with the EU as a model. It has moved from military repression to relative liberalism, they suggest, albeit a liberalism that has an Islamic hue.
‘These changes, as well as the speed with which they have taken hold, are nothing short of remarkable,’ they write. ‘That they have happened at all is due to one thing: the prospect of membership in the European Union. The transformative potential this prospect has held has been clear to American policy makers for years, and, wisely, they have supported Turkey’s bid consistently and vocally.’
Of course, US support for Turkish accession to the EU is somewhat problematic. George Bush pushed this line in 2004 despite attempts from the French and others to warn him off. ‘Including Turkey in the E.U. would prove that Europe is not the exclusive club of a single religion, and it would expose the clash of civilizations as a passing myth in history,’ he said.
It’s hard for Europeans to be lectured on this issue by a man who believes that the US is in the midst of a Christian revival prompted by the ‘confrontation between good and evil’ (his words) that America finds itself in. Or from a guy who said this in 2001:
Oh, I know there’s some voices who want to wall us off from Mexico. They want to build a wall. I say to them, they want to condemn our neighbours to the south in poverty, and I refuse to accept that type of isolationist and protectionist attitude.
And then signed a bill to build a 700 mile fence along the Mexican border in 2006 – part of a desperate attempt to shore up his approval rating with the shrinking portion of Americans who represent his base.
But I digress. (more…)
by Richard Gowan | May 20, 2008 | Conflict and security, Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa, UK
Since time immemorial, or at least the 1970s, British soldiers have liked to point out that they can “do” counter-insurgency thanks to their Northern Irish experience. When David Petraeus was attempting to drum up British interest in his Iraqi surge plan last year, he was quick to say that the Brits “really understand this kind of operation” because of their time in Ireland. But now British troops, no longer required to battle the IRA, stake their claim to expertise on, er, Iraq.
The Ministry of Defence has just published some rousing interviews with troops off to “reassure” Kosovo. Here’s a selection of the reassuring things they had to say:
“We’ve taken on Basra so Kosovo will have to seriously flare up for us to be put under pressure.”
“There’s nothing new or more difficult than what we will have done in Basra. The likelihood of enemy action will be significantly different to Basra; KFOR (the NATO Kosovo Force) is not in contact the way MND(SE) [Multi-National Division South East – Iraq] was in contact on an hourly basis.”
“Iraq was a bit of a surprise. The level of action increased from three or four mortar attacks a week to three or four a night by the time we left. My company fired 40,000 rounds in Iraq. That level of combat and experience is quite different. By and large it should be quiet in Kosovo, but if it does kick off, after Iraq I think people will be surprised by our robustness.”
So watch out Kosovo Serbs: you may think you’re in Mitrovica, but from now on you’re in Basra.
